For decades, Hong Kong has been a captivating hub for native-speaking English teachers from all over the world. With its attractive packages and values, it is no secret that Hong Kong schools have been among the most popular workplaces for teachers over the years.

Yet there is one practice that deserves more attention and a thorough public discussion: mandatory retirement at 60 for many educators. At a time when people are living longer, staying healthier, and working well into later life across much of the world, forcing experienced teachers to leave the classroom simply because they have reached their still-vigorous 60 is decidedly out of step with reality.

This is not merely a question of employment policy: It is a conversation about longevity, economic security, practical usefulness, and the way society views aging.

When retirement ages were first established decades ago, in the Industrial Age, life expectancy was significantly lower: Reaching 60 then often meant entering the final stage of one’s working life. Today, on the other hand, many people can expect to live well into their 80s and beyond, especially with the advances in healthcare, nutrition and living standards that have transformed what 60 looks like. It is no longer considered old by most measures, and for many professionals, it means approaching the peak of their careers rather than the end.

Teaching is one of those professions. Great teachers do not simply accumulate years of service; they accumulate judgment, wisdom, and experience. They learn how to read a classroom, motivate reluctant learners, adapt lessons to different personalities, and mentor younger colleagues. These are skills that cannot be downloaded from a textbook or acquired through a short training course: They are developed over decades.

When schools require capable teachers to retire solely because they have turned 60, they are not only affecting the individuals involved, but also losing an extraordinary reservoir of knowledge and experience that benefits students, colleagues and the education system as a whole.

At the same time, the economic landscape has changed dramatically. Across the world, the cost of living continues to rise, and Hong Kong is no exception. Housing, healthcare and everyday expenses place increasing pressure on households. While some people look forward to retirement and have the financial resources to enjoy it, many others simply are not in that position. For these individuals, retirement at 60 is not a reward; it can become a source of anxiety and a significant financial challenge.

As Hong Kong prepares to meet ever newer challenges, it should also rethink what it means to grow older. Age should not be treated as a limitation but as one aspect of a person’s identity — no more decisive than gender, ethnicity or background.

Many people remain physically and mentally capable of continuing their careers for many more years. Some wish to work because they enjoy exercising their expertise, contributing to society, and the camaraderie of the workplace, while others need the income to maintain their living standard. They are all legitimate justifications. The question, therefore, should not be whether everyone ought to work beyond 60. Rather, it should be why capable professionals are prevented from doing so.

Many countries have already recognized this changing reality: Across Europe, for example, retirement ages have gradually increased in response to longer life expectancies, changing demographics, primarily shrinking family sizes, and economic necessity. Governments understand that extending working lives can support both individuals and public finances while making better use of experienced professionals. Hong Kong should not ignore these global trends and should start making adjustments in response to such changes.

Of course, no one is suggesting that retirement should disappear altogether, nor should older employees be expected to continue working indefinitely: There are professions where physical demands make earlier retirement entirely appropriate. Equally, some people understandably wish to retire as soon as they become eligible, and that choice should be respected. The key word here is choice. If an experienced teacher remains effective, meets professional standards and wishes to continue teaching, age alone should not be the deciding factor.

Underlying this debate is a broader issue that extends well beyond education: ageism. Despite frequent discussions about diversity and inclusion, age discrimination often remains socially acceptable. We celebrate youth while quietly assuming that growing older means becoming less adaptable, less energetic, or less valuable. These assumptions persist despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In reality, many people begin entirely new careers after 60; some launch businesses, write books, complete university degrees, or contribute to their communities in ways they never had time for earlier in life. Creativity, leadership and emotional intelligence do not suddenly expire on one’s 60th birthday.

Indeed, older workers often bring qualities that organizations desperately need: experience, perspective, stability, and the ability to mentor the next generation. In education especially, where relationships and human understanding are central to success, these qualities are invaluable.

A more balanced approach would recognize that performance matters more than age. Schools already evaluate teachers through observations, professional development and appraisal systems. These mechanisms can continue to ensure high standards regardless of whether a teacher is 35, 60 or 68.

Such an approach would also encourage intergenerational collaboration rather than competition. Younger teachers bring fresh ideas and technological confidence. Senior teachers contribute wisdom, classroom management, and institutional memory. Students benefit most when both generations work together and complement each other.

Ultimately, this discussion is about recognizing how much society has changed: We are living longer, healthier and more active lives than previous generations. Our policies should reflect that reality instead of remaining tied to assumptions from another era. Mandatory retirement at 60 may once have made sense, but today, it deserves careful reconsideration across all professions.

As Hong Kong prepares to meet ever newer challenges, it should also rethink what it means to grow older. Age should not be treated as a limitation but as one aspect of a person’s identity — no more decisive than gender, ethnicity or background. A birthday should not outweigh competence, commitment and passion. Perhaps the question is no longer whether people can continue working after 60: The real question is why we continue to assume that they should not.

The author is an educator, theater director, actor, playwright and founder of Aurora Theatre.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.